It's conceivable that a parasite that has evolved to control host behavior could have adverse psychological effects on human hosts, thus the research into it.
My theory is that it modifies the behavior of human hosts, causing them to dismiss the idea that parasites from cats could modify the behavior of humans.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper.
Not cheaper by much. I remember comments here asking why if AMD had overtaken Intel, why were their high-end CPUs now almost as expensive as Intel's had been. The replies stating that if you're the market leader, you can set your prices as high as you want.
I think that's where they screwed up. Instead of keeping their prices low so they could gain market share, they raised their prices to try to recoup their R&D expenses. If they'd aimed for market share, that would've resulted in much greater industry support - AMD motherboards, chipsets, compatible memory, retailers stocking their CPUs, brand names offering more models using AMD processors, etc. Instead they chose short-term gains over long-term, meaning Intel had an easy time reasserting its dominance as soon as they managed to convert their laptop CPU cores to desktop use.
If they're keeping the price down at half Intel's prices, it sounds like they learned their lesson.
* you can draw everybody to the bottom with a catastrophe
* or you can try to give opportunities to people to draw them up
While it is very easy to see why method 1 will reduce inequalities (everybody is dead is also reducing inequalities to zero) but it is quite clear that in our modern societies we strive to point 2, which is something relatively new compared to history.
However, for the "donor" country - i.e. the one that is not collecting any tax revenues from the sales achieved by that company, the problem gets much, much worse. The literally billions in taxes not being paid to these countries still has to be collected from somewhere. And that is exactly what happens - the individual, personal tax payers of those nations end up footing the bill.
If the company is not consuming any resources in the donor nation, it has minimal to no impact on the tax payers in the donor nation. If Apple only has a one-room office in the Cayman Islands with a single employee who sits there doing nothing but signing, scanning, and emailing back paperwork saying that subsidiary received $x licensing fees for y purpose, then it makes almost zero difference to the citizens of the Cayman Islands that he's paying zero taxes.
A population granted this extra income would:-
1. Spend more - thus helping to keep the economy moving
2. Save more - thus helping to reduce the burden on the state for things like pensions
3. Invest more - thus helping UK business to grow and prosper
Taxes per se cannot do any of those things. Taxes are merely shifting money from one purse to another. There is not productivity increase associated with collecting taxes, so it cannot increase the GDP, cannot increase standard of living, cannot keep the economy moving.
How those taxes are used is what determines whether productivity increases. And it can only do that if the way the government spends it increases productivity more than if the tax hadn't been collected and the person/company had been free to spend it as they wished.
Basically, you're arguing with the assumption that taxation is by its very nature always a benefit to the economy. It is not. Just like you have to make decisions regarding which purchases will benefit you more (e.g. food for the table vs. a big screen TV), or a company has to make decisions on what to purchase (new computers for staff, or an all-expenses paid retreat to Tahiti), how tax revenue is spent vs how it would've been spent if not taxed in the first place determines whether or not taxation is a net benefit to the economy. Whichever spending decision increases productivity more is the one which helps the economy more.
In most cases, you can make an argument that tax shelters results in disproportionately greater income (in the form of stock dividends) for extremely wealthy stockholders. And that their purchasing habits are distorted by their wealth towards economic inefficiency (e.g. gold toilet seats). So taxing that money would've been a net benefit to the economy.
However, that reveals the crucial flaw in the concept of taxing corporations: The corporation never pays the tax. It ends up being paid by for by its customers in the form of higher prices. Or by its employees in the form of lower wages. Or by its stockholders in the form of reduced dividends. The corporation is a pass-through paper entity. Basically the glue that allows a bunch of employees and stockholders to pool their labor and financial resources together so into a synchronized activity. The corporation itself doesn't contribute anything, so it generates no productivity, so cannot pay taxes. Any corporate taxes are paid for by people - customers, employees, stockholders.
So instead of playing this unproductive whack-a-mole game trying to stomp out corporate tax havens, just reduce the corporate tax rate to zero and tax those people directly. If you dislike wealthy stockholders making so much profit, increase their income tax. If you think employees at successful companies are not paying their fair share, you increase their income taxes. If you dislike that the money your citizens are paying for Apple products are being shifted out of the country, you increase the sales tax rate. etc.
Let's have an article about the horse and buggy industry next.
Here, you can go right to the source: buggy.com
No need to thank me.
You don't want to be holding your breath on that one.
Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson